Red, White & Blog

Thursday, November 15, 2018

if the left couldn't attack the right with and -ist and -ism or -phobic name-calling, they'd actually have to defend their insane ideas and proposals on the substance. They can't because they, for the most part, live in a bubble where that is never required. Conservatives, on the other hand, are surrounded on all sides by the entertainment industry, media and academia and are constantly required to defend our ideas and ourselves against this slander. That's why our ideas are generally better. They've been honed through debate.

However, the appeal of Trump is that we're not going to put up with this shit anymore. The left wants to call us bigots, etc, well my response is "Fuck you." The conversation is over. Why'd I vote for Trump? Fuck you. That's why. Why don't I care about his character flaws? Fuck you. That's why. Why do I let Trump get away with shit I'd never let a Dem president get away with? Fuck you. That's why.

And naturally, the left, completely bereft of the ability to argue without this childish name-calling doubles down, triples down and just starts calling everyone racist and rioting, chasing people out of restaurants - just going nuts. They don't want a conversation. They don't want a debate. They want to dominate us.

The reason the Crenshaw/Davidson thing worked is because both men approached the situation in good faith. Davidson is getting crushed by the left for allowing a "white supremacist" on his segment. That's the opposite. Until that changes, it's gonna be "fuck you. that's why" and I'm not waiting around for the Left to change its tone. Even if they did, I'm not sure I'd believe it. It's Charlie Brown and the football. Regardless, the left has to go first.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

It looks like Trump will take action on this issue. It relates to an interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship clause. Here is the basicargument.

From what I can tell, the opposition argument, once you get past all of the typical name-calling and frothing at the mouth, is that language of the 14th Amendment means "you're born here, you're a citizen" unless you're the child of an ambassador or diplomat (or invading soldier). I don't have a dictionary from 1860s to help, but so far as I can tell, that doesn't make much sense because the 14th Amendment requires residency as well "are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." It looks like the framers did not mean for the children all foreigners to just become citizens unless they were already allowed to live here permanently.In essence, this means that the children of legal residents (green card holders) are naturally born citizens. Children of illegals are not, so anchor babies would cease to be a thing. Children of tourists and foreign exchange students are not citizens, which should end birth tourism. Not sure where refugees and asylum seekers fit into all of this, but better to error on the side of NOPE if their status is undetermined. There's already too many garbage asylum claims that seek to take advantage of our generous laws and incompetent system. We don't want to encourage more. I realize that has not always been how the country works, but the idealized Ellis Island is a fantasy. People there were screened and many were sent back to where they came from. Plus, now that we have such a big welfare state and all sorts of government benefits, there should be a clearer set of restrictions on who is let in. Whether the President has the power to alter the definition via executive order is debatable. Then again, Obama granted amnesty and created DACA by fiat, so why can't President Trump do whatever he wants in this area of which he has quite a bit of plenary power. The preferred method, of course, is that Congress would enact legislation resolving these questions, but its too dysfunctional for that right now - mostly because there are too many pro-amnesty pols from both sides. UPDATE: I've done a bit more research. There is a lot of discussion of these issues going back centuries, so it is really just skimming some of it. Some of discussion seems to be conflicting and very little of it relates to those temporarily passing through. Really, there was no such thing as "illegal" immigration. That would cut in the benefit of the pro-birthright citizenship camp, I believe, though a lot of it depends on what words meant back at the framing of the 14th Amendment, which was naturally informed by past uses of the terms.

I think the crux of the issue, from a legal perspective, will be whether residency was required for one to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as opposed to the laws simply applying to those folks as well. Since illegals and tourists can't, by definition, be residents in the US, that would seem to favor the pro-Trumpian side of the argument.

Monday, September 24, 2018

No witnesses back up either of these claims. No documents back up either of these claims. No mention of any of these accusations for over 30 years. There is simply no evidence supporting these claims and they contradict the vast majority of evidence supporting Kavanaugh's good character and treatment of the women in his life.

There is, however, a mountain of evidence that the Democrats would do whatever it takes to derail this nomination. They pissed away the filibuster on Gorsuch (not sure it could be done away with here) and they simply don't have the votes to stop Kavanaugh if the GOP supports him, which it should. The Dems lied about his record ever since he was nominated. They lied about his opinions, his prior testimony (Kamala Harris deceptively edited a video of his testimony to distort what he actually said.) They've lied about his work in the Bush White House and on the Ken Starr team. They lied about documents being made public. They even tried to smear him about the handshake and the Nazi symbol during the hearing, plus all of the coordinated interruptions and demands for the hearing to be delayed for flimsy reasons. They're still bitching about Merrick Garland, too as if the GOP dragged that man's good name through the mud to stop him (they simply chose not to deal with it at all).

In other words, Democrats have the motive to "resist" at all costs and they're desperate, so desperate, that they're clearly smearing Kavanaugh's good name and reputation that he's built up over a lifetime of good deeds and public service. They don't care. They're even going so far as to throw out centuries of basic legal principles that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that it is not upon the accused to prove his innocence, but the prosecution to prove its case. Even in the context of a judicial nomination, these basic standards of fairness and due process must win out.

"Believe all women" is a nice slogan, but it is foolish and rejects basic fairness and due process for the accused. Plus, are numerous tales of women lying about such things - Tawana Brawley, Duke Lacrosse, UVA "Jackie"/Rolling Stone. Again, however, in this case, there is ZERO evidence supporting these claims as they pertain to Kavanaugh.

Monday, January 30, 2017

As soon as Trump is sworn in and starts doing what he said he would do, the loony left goes nuts. Of course, they are nuts. They lie. They cheat. They steal. They don't care. They just want power and they're never more entertaining than when they lack it. This all should make for an entertaining 4 to 8 years...

Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Quickly, Donald Trump is not really qualified to be President. I don't think he has the proper temperament or experience to be president. He's been a NY liberal all his life and his recent conversion to conservatism smacks of Romney-like convenience and opportunism. As for his business experience, I don't need to see his tax returns to know he's been successful. It's apparent. Even though he did not start at the bottom, he has certainly increased his net worth over the last few decades. He's a tough and aggressive business man. I don't agree with all of his methods, but it doesn't appear that he's broken the law. He speaks his mind, though sometimes he'd be better off not doing so.

All of the racism accusations were alleged against Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush and Reagan. It's nothing new. From what I can tell, the evidence that Trump is a racist is based on leftist interpretations of his public utterances and disagreement over his proposed policies. In other words, Trump says something and the responses, to prove he is racist, is "what he is really saying is...." This dog whistle nonsense is old hat for the left and shouldn't be taken seriously. He's not polished in political speech, so these things can happen, but people should not be so quick to assume bad intent - it's a major problem with our society and culture these days that people assume the worst of others.

Likewise, he wants to close up the southern border so he's called a racist. That isn't racism. That the KKK evidently endorsed him isn't his fault. He has not endorsed them. So far as I can tell, he's rejected the endorsement. The KKK is, and has been, the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party since Reconstruction. It is not a serious part of American politics. It has no influence beyond its role as the boogeyman.

My overall impression is that Donald Trump is very politically incorrect, which makes comfortable people mad. That's good. Ivy Leaguers don't talk that way, so there must be something wrong with it, but their responses are so predictable that it has become cliched - an ism or phobia must be the cause. But Trump seems to attract lower working and middle class people. These people have not benefited from globalism, the stock market or the technology revolution in places like Silicon Valley. Heck, they can't even afford to live in those places that are doing well.

That said, Trump is not disqualified from being president. While I have concerns, it's mostly that his mouth has gotten him into trouble.

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from the presidency. Beyond the fact that's she's a leftist, she's totally corrupt. She set up the private email server to hide her Clinton Foundation pay-to-play and bribery schemes. She clearly made decisions to benefit big time donors, including foreign countries like Ukraine and Morocco. She instructed her staff to destroy evidence after she was subpoenaed by Congress. She has repeatedly lied to the American people about what she did. That the FBI and our entire federal government has strained to protect her makes her even more dangerous. She is treated as if she's immune. No one is above the law.

If you look at her resume, you might be impressed, but her record of actual accomplishments is very thin. What she has been in charge of - health care in the 1990s or Obama's middle east policy (Libya, Syria) has been utterly disastrous. Even her most ardent supporters can't really name any significant accomplishments.

Add to that her fascist inclinations. She wants the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United, a case in which the Court held that the government cannot ban criticism of Hillary Clinton. To Repeat: Hillary want government to ban speech that criticizes her. She also wants to overturn Heller, which case acknowledged our 2nd amendment rights. I could go on, but this woman simply does not respect the constitutional rights of Americans...which is probably why she wants to import more non-Americans. In the old days, voters replaced politicians. She is a politician that wants to replace the voter with new ones she believes are easier to manipulate and more accustomed to government control over their lives. These policies should be rejected, as should she.

She is dishonest. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She believes she is above the law and so do the sycophants that surround her. She is dangerous to democracy and our country. She is disqualified from being president.

Bottom line is that I voted for Trump, but to be more accurate, I voted against Hillary. She should be in prison, not the White House.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Even as the evidence accumulates that the policy was a terrible mistake from the point of view of the pre-existing American population, elites insist that the policy is unquestionable ... more than unquestionable, that the only possible revision of the policy is to accelerate future flows of low-skill immigration even faster, whether as migrants or as refugees or in some other way.